G.R. No. 167614 http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/march2009/167614.htm illegally dismissed employees for the entire unexpired portion of their employment contracts. [111] While Article 605 has remained good law up to the present, Article 299 of the Code of Commerce was replaced by Art. 1586 of the Civil Code of 1889, to wit: Article 1586. Field hands, mechanics, artisans, and other laborers hired for a certain time and for a certain work cannot leave or be dismissed without sufficient cause, before the fulfillment of the contract. (Emphasis supplied.) [112] Citing Manresa, the Court in Lemoine v. Alkan read the disjunctive "or" in Article 1586 as a conjunctive "and" so as to apply the provision to local workers who are employed for a time certain although for no particular skill. This interpretation of Article 1586 was reiterated in Garcia Palomar v. [113] Hotel de France Company. And in both Lemoine and Palomar, the Court adopted the general principle that in actions for wrongful discharge founded on Article 1586, local workers are entitled to recover damages to the extent of the amount stipulated to be paid to them by the terms of their [114] held: contract. On the computation of the amount of such damages, the Court in Aldaz v. Gay The doctrine is well-established in American jurisprudence, and nothing has been brought to our attention to the contrary under Spanish jurisprudence, that when an employee is wrongfully discharged it is his duty to seek other employment of the same kind in the same community, for the purpose of reducing the damages resulting from such wrongful discharge. However, while this is the general rule, the burden of showing that he failed to make an effort to secure other employment of a like nature, and that other employment of a like nature was obtainable, is upon the defendant. When an employee is wrongfully discharged under a contract of employment his prima facie damage is the amount which he would be entitled to had he continued in such employment until the termination of the period. (Howard vs. Daly, 61 N. Y., 362; Allen vs. Whitlark, 99 Mich., 492; Farrell vs. School District No. 2, 98 [115] Mich., 43.) (Emphasis supplied) On August 30, 1950, the New Civil Code took effect with new provisions on fixed-term employment: Section 2 (Obligations with a Period), Chapter 3, Title I, and Sections 2 (Contract of [116] Labor) and 3 (Contract for a Piece of Work), Chapter 3, Title VIII, Book IV. Much like Article 1586 of the Civil Code of 1889, the new provisions of the Civil Code do not expressly provide for the remedies available to a fixed-term worker who is illegally discharged. However, it is noted that in [117] Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co., Inc. v. Rich, the Court carried over the principles on the payment of damages underlying Article 1586 of the Civil Code of 1889 and applied the same to a case involving the illegal discharge of a local worker whose fixed-period employment contract was entered [118] into in 1952, when the new Civil Code was already in effect. More significantly, the same principles were applied to cases involving overseas Filipino workers whose fixed-term employment contracts were illegally terminated, such as in First Asian 20 of 33 1/26/2016 3:06 PM